Talk:Jiahu symbols

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Chinese history.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in China may be able to help!

The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Photograph is Not Jiahu Script.

The photograph given [[1]] is an oracle bone inscription dating to the Shang Dynasty. It reads 貞旬癸卯卜. Therefore, its inclusion into this so called Jiahu Script, is spurious. Dylanwhs 11:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Writing System Debate

"...some doubt that the markings represent systematic writing at all..." This should read that "...most doubt that the markings represent systematic writing at all..." Most archeologists and historians do not consider this to be an early writing form. The only people who think that this is a writing form are ethnocentric, government sponsored Chinese archaeologists/historians and the associated fringe Western types. Current evidence does not support this and therefore it should not be implied that there is already significant consensus on this matter, supporting the writing position. I will change the article accordingly.Phail Saph (talk) 09:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidence?

It kinda looks like 目八头日, doesn't it? Well considering the first character is inverted 90 degrees which was how people wrote it in the Shang Dynasty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.12.20 (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re-split after merge

@Gothicartech, is there any update on expansion of this article here? In its present state in a vacuum I would advocate for it to be merged back as I did before, but given your confidence that it can be fleshed out into its own article that better serves readers I wanted to check in. Remsense ‥ 论 06:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the article is relatively easy to expand, as the generated controversy will continue to feed speculations by the scientists. There is no doubt in my mind that this subject is perfectly notable on its own. For the avoidance of doubt, I have no solid position on the merits of keeping this text as a standalone article or merging. Викидим (talk) 04:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]